argument67

sweetbettyUID??2359460

    In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to save money and improve service, the government should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. To support his view, the arguer cites that with the garbage collection departments in the two villages merged into a new one, the new garbage collection department received few complaints. However, as it stands, I find the argument flaws in some respects.
     To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that with the merge of two separate garbage collection departments, residents in the two villages are more satisfied with the service. Although the arguer cites that few complaints have been reported, the comparison is incomplete. Perhaps the complaints from the residents of the two villages are more than before as the arguer fails to provide the situation before the policy were carried out. Or perhaps actually residents are not as satisfied as before, but they do not want to involve themselves into the matters, and then they choose to be silent on this policy. Without eliminating these possibilities, what the arguer tries to convince us remains unfounded.
Second, even assuming that the policy of merging two separate garbage collection departments is successful in some degree, however, the arguer fails to convince us that the same policy will work on the library. For the library is where people read books, people may often go to the library while the garbage collection department is quite different from the library, no matter from the function in daily life or the demand of residents. If the library in Polluxon is going to be closed, residents there may find it too convenient to go to library for the longer distance involved. Moreover, the amount of books from only one library may not satisfy the readers from two villages.            
Third, even if there is need to close one library, no evidence is given that the library in Polluxon should be closed. Although the arguer cites that the library in Polluxon had reported 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, it is entirely possible the library in Castorville suffers from more declines of users. Or perhaps the amount of books in Polluxon which could be borrowed is larger than the Castoville. Then if they choose to close the library in Polluxon, it will bring more objections from the residents.
    Last but not least, the arguer fails to convince us that this policy on library is economic and satisfying. It is entirely possible that the amount of books in the library of Castoville can not satisfy the readers from two villages. Then, to satisfy the need of readers, the library may need to buy new books which will add to the expense of the government. Or the longer distance to library for some reader will add the complaints.
       In sum, the argument is unconvincing. To better bolster the recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence that the policy on garbage collection department is successful. Besides, we should be convinced that the policy can be applied on the matter of library. Moreover, more evidence should be supplied that with the policy carried out, the government will reduce the expense and the service will be improved actually.

linshaoUID??2338229

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to save money and improve service, the government should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. To support his view, the arguer cites that with the garbage collection departments in the two villages merged into a new one, the new garbage collection department received few complaints. However, as it stands, I find the argument flaws in some respects.
     To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that with the merge of two separate garbage collection departments, residents in the two villages are more satisfied with the service. Although the arguer cites that few complaints have been reported, the comparison is incomplete. Perhaps the complaints from the residents of the two villages are more than before as the arguer fails to provide the situation before the policy were carried out. Or perhaps actually residents are not as satisfied as before, but they do not want to involve themselves into the matters, and then they choose to be silent on this policy.（这个假设太牵强了吧，老美可不是咱们中国老百姓啊，他们是很能投诉的）Without eliminating these possibilities, what the arguer tries to convince us remains unfounded.
Second, even assuming that the policy of merging two separate garbage collection departments is successful in some degree, however, the arguer fails to convince us that the same policy will work on the library. For the library is where people read books, people may often go to the library while the garbage collection department is quite different from the library, no matter from the function in daily life or the demand of residents. If the library in Polluxon is going to be closed, residents there may find it too convenient to go to library for the longer distance involved. Moreover, the amount of books from only one library may not satisfy the readers from two villages. （是合并，不是纯关闭啊，书当然合在一起了）这段说的蛮好的，两者功能不同，我怎么没想到呢      
Third, even if there is need to close one library, no evidence is given that the library in Polluxon should be closed. Although the arguer cites that the library in Polluxon had reported 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, it is entirely possible the library in Castorville suffers from more declines of users. Or perhaps the amount of books in Polluxon which could be borrowed is larger than the Castoville. Then if they choose to close the library in Polluxon, it will bring more objections from the residents.（这段可以加一点，需要做群众调查，就完美了）    Last but not least, the arguer fails to convince us that this policy on library is economic and satisfying. It is entirely possible that the amount of books in the library of Castoville can not satisfy the readers from two villages. Then, to satisfy the need of readers, the library may need to buy new books which will add to the expense of the government. Or the longer distance to library for some reader will add the complaints.
       In sum, the argument is unconvincing. To better bolster the recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence that the policy on garbage collection department is successful. （这倒不必说了吧，作者主要建议图书馆合并，垃圾收集只是一个例子而已，需要论证的是图书馆的可行性）Besides, we should be convinced that the policy can be applied on the matter of library. Moreover, more evidence should be supplied that with the policy carried out, the government will reduce the expense and the service will be improved actually.
总的来说写的不错，驳斥点找的比较全面。
以上只是我的片面之见，纯主观的，偏激之处望见谅。

xiongnashiongUID??2359406

argument67
    In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to save money and improve service, the government should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. To support his view, the arguer cites that with the garbage collection departments in the two villages merged into a new one, the new garbage collection department received few complaints. However, as it stands, I find the argument flaws in some respects.
     To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that with the merge of two separate garbage collection departments, residents in the two villages are more satisfied with the service. Although the arguer cites that few complaints have been reported, the comparison is incomplete. Perhaps the complaints from the residents of the two villages are more than before as the arguer fails to provide the situation before the policy were carried out. Or perhaps actually residents are not as satisfied as before, but they do not want to involve themselves into the matters, and then they choose to be silent on this policy. Without eliminating these possibilities, what the arguer tries to convince us remains unfounded.(合并是否省钱是不是也是问题之一呢)
Second, even assuming that the policy of merging two separate garbage collection departments is successful in some degree, however, the arguer fails to convince us that the same policy will work on the library. For the library is where people read books, people may often go to the library while the garbage collection department is quite different from the library, no matter from the function in daily life or the demand of residents. If the library in Polluxon is going to be closed, residents there may find it too convenient to go to library for the longer distance involved. Moreover, the amount of books from only one library may not satisfy the readers from two villages. （不一定对图书馆适用）            
Third, even if there is need to close one library, no evidence is given that the library in Polluxon should be closed. Although the arguer cites that the library in Polluxon had reported 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, it is entirely possible the library in Castorville suffers from more declines of users. Or perhaps the amount of books in Polluxon which could be borrowed is larger than the Castoville. Then if they choose to close the library in Polluxon, it will bring more objections from the residents.（这个很有道理，我没有发现 呵呵）
    Last but not least, the arguer fails to convince us that this policy on library is economic and satisfying. It is entirely possible that the amount of books in the library of Castoville can not satisfy the readers from two villages. Then, to satisfy the need of readers, the library may need to buy new books which will add to the expense of the government. Or the longer distance to library for some reader will add the complaints.(我觉得这点和你第三段证明的不能适用是同一个问题啊)
       In sum, the argument is unconvincing. To better bolster the recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence that the policy on garbage collection department is successful. Besides, we should be convinced that the policy can be applied on the matter of library. Moreover, more evidence should be supplied that with the policy carried out, the government will reduce the expense and the service will be improved actually.